A.P. Sahi, President

There is a delay of 155 days in the filing of this revision petition. The delay condonation application IA/1801/2026 narrates that since the counsel was in the process of shifting his office. The file was inadvertently misplaced and remained untraceable which was ultimately found on 17.01.2026. The explanation seems to be that it had got mixed up with some other file and had been tagged with the same as a result whereof 110 days delay has been explained. There is no explanation with regard to the entire period and even otherwise such an explanation seems to be an excuse and not a valid explanation where the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531 analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

                   "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

                   31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

                   32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

2. The revision petition even otherwise arises out of a complaint with regard to an insurance claim of theft of a car. According to the complainant when he was driving his Swift car bearing Registration No. HR 26 U 0018, he at about 6.16 p.m. stopped near a wine shop from where he purchased liquor and when he returned back to his vehicle two unknown person came swiftly pushing the complainant and snatched the keys of the vehicle. They robbed and drove the vehicle whereafter the complainant lodged an FIR no. 270 on 06.12.2012 at the concerned police station.

3. The matter was investigated, a couple of accused were apprehended and charge sheet filed, but ultimately the complainant could not identify the accused as a result whereof neither the vehicle was recovered nor any conviction could be achieved in the criminal case.

4. Having failed in his attempt to recover the vehicle, CC/154/2016 was filed by the complainant before the DCDRC, Kurukshetra. The complaint was allowed holding the Insurance Company to be deficient vide order dated 17.01.2018.

5. The Insurance Company filed FA/355/2018 and the complainant also filed FA/879/2018 praying for an enhancement of the awarded amount.

6. The appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement was dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the District Commission was allowed vide order dated 13.06.2025.

7. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant could not identify the vehicle in the criminal case and that he did not cooperate with the Insurance surveyor as a result whereof the claim could not be established. This non-cooperation with the investigator was also taken as a ground to allow the appeal and dismiss the complaint.

8. We agree with the findings of the State Commission, but it would be appropriate to record our additional reasons for confirming the same which we find are necessary. The Insurance Company while filing its reply has taken a categorical stand that the complainant gave the information after almost three years on 17.02.2015. It is thereafter that the investigator was appointed and accordingly the complaint was not found to be genuine, as such in view of the breach of terms of the policy and in the absence of immediate information to the Insurance Company, the claim was repudiated. This fact is stated in paragraph 3 of the reply of the Insurance Company while responding to merits of the claim.

9. To us it appears that the complainant was trying his level best in the criminal case where he failed and he could not identify the accused whereafter the intimation was given on 17.02.2015. It is therefore more than evident that the information to the Insurance Company which should have been immediate, was given after a huge lapse of time and therefore in the absence of information to the Insurance Company within a reasonable time, prevented the Insurance Company from making any appropriate enquiry and investigation into the theft as alleged. The survey itself was conducted almost after three years on account of this delay and consequently in the absence of any information the Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim.

10. Learned counsel cited the decision in the case of Gurshinder Singh Vs., Shriram General Insurance Company, (2020) 11 SCC 612 to advance his submissions to contend that the FIR had been lodged promptly. In our considered opinion the mere lodging of a prompt FIR without intimation to the Insurance Company for 2 % years is a clear breach of the terms of the policy which require immediate information to be tendered. The word "immediate" has been explained in the case of Gurshinder Singh (Supra) which in our opinion means within a reasonable period and not after 2 % years. In the case of Gurshinder Singh (Supra), the Apex Court after examining the decisions in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 and the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, (2018) 9 SCC 798 clarified that the Insurance Company in cases of theft cannot deny the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of theft. The word used by the Apex Court is "some" delay. It has been further held that in cases of theft, it is the police which has to investigate and lodge its report and since the closure report is lodged in the court concerned that the vehicle is not traceable, and the investigator or surveyor of the Insurance Company also does not dispute the theft, then a mere delay in lodging the claim with the Insurance Company will not disqualify the claimant from seeking indemnification. In the case of Om Prakash (Supra) it had been found that the claim had been duly verified and found to be correct by the investigator of the Insurance Company and as such the claim had been found to be otherwise genuine. We may point out that in the case of Om Prakash (Supra), the theft had occurred in January, 1995 and the intimation to the Insurance Company had been given after four months in May, 1995. It is in this context that the Apex Court did observe that if there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft that the claim was allowed and the law was accordingly clarified by answering the reference in the case of Gurshinder Singh (Supra). The same decision was again reiterated in the case of Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 527 where the Apex Court found that the Insurance Company had not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. Accordingly a delay of 5 months on the part of the complainant was held to be not fatal.

11. In the instant case the FIR was lodged, the charge sheet was filed and the accused were acquitted because the complainant could not identify the accused, even though the incident had occurred at about 6.15 p.m. in the evening of 06.12.2012 near a wine shop. We therefore find that the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts as well.

12. Admittedly in the present case the theft took place on 06.12.2012, whereas the Insurance Company was informed for the first time on 17.02.2015. The State Commission has recorded a categorical finding to the effect "assertion on the part of complainant that he promptly intimated the insurer regarding incident stood belied as there is no circumstance to support the same, except his own bald assertion which cannot be believed". The State Commission has further recorded that the "Insurance machinery was set into motion after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings" and therefore this conduct of the complainant has also been commented upon by the State Commission as dubious. The information to the Insurance Company was unreasonably delayed beyond a period of almost 2 % years. The inordinate period cannot be termed as a "mere" or "some" delay to condone the same. The phrase "immediate" intimation to the Insurer under the terms of the policy cannot be stretched so as to denude its meaning altogether. A delay of the nature presently involved therefore would amount to a breach of the terms of the policy and such a delay therefore cannot be brushed aside so as to apply the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

13. Having considered all these aspects we do not find any error much less a material irregularity or any illegality in the impugned order. Thus, for all the reasons hereinbefore there is no scope for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company, (2011) 11 SCC 269,  which is followed by the recent decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 and Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors., (2022) 9 SCC 31. The petition is accordingly dismissed.